Block paving firm and damage to pavement

stepp

We employed a firm to block pave our driveway. The building merchants they have used to drop off the sand and blocks has damaged the pavement outside.

I took pictures off the grab lorry and the damage done.

Who is liable for this?

DVardysShadow

Builders merchant.

In terms of vicarious liability you are responsible for the actions of your servants, the block pavers. And they are responsible for the actions of their servants, the builders merchant.

But, differently from the previous case where we discussed vicarious liability, the responsibility to care for the public pavement is a delegable responsibility. So the builders merchant is responsible in their own right.

iamcornholio

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Builders merchant.

In terms of vicarious liability you are responsible for the actions of your servants,

Vicarious liability only attaches under a strict set of circumstances. There has to be a defined relationship and a specific set of criteria for there to be liability for another's actions.

An employment contract may attract such liability, but engaging a self employed person may not. It depends

In very broad terms it could relate to the level of control one has over the negligent person, before negligence can attach vicariously. But vicarious liability would be very rare for homeowners

So it is not the case that one is responsible for the actions of their servants in negligence

In this instance its very simple; the delivery driver is responsible. And maybe his employer - vicariously

DVardysShadow

iamcornholio wrote: »

Vicarious liability only attaches under a strict set of circumstances. There has to be a defined relationship and a specific set of criteria for there to be liability for another's actions.

An employment contract may attract such liability, but engaging a self employed person may not. It depends

In very broad terms it could relate to the level of control one has over the negligent person, before negligence can attach vicariously. But vicarious liability would be very rare for homeowners

So it is not the case that one is responsible for the actions of their servants in negligence

In this instance its very simple; the delivery driver is responsible. And maybe his employer - vicariously

Vicarious liability goes from master to servant [it is related to the word vicar' which means deputy and relates to liability for the acts of your servants].

The employing builders merchant is responsible for the acts of his servant, the driver - which is the direction in which vicarious liability goes - the master is responsible for the servant.

On is very much responsible for the actions of one's servant - unless the responsibility is delegable.

As for vicarious liability being 'very rare for homeowners', see this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4024801 which illustrates a very common circumstance which would give rise to vicarious liability. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misunderstanding about this subject.

iamcornholio

No, it has specific meaning and criteria in the tort of negligence.

And if you know about that, then you will know that first it must be established that a duty is owed, and then it must be established whether there is a controlling person to whom any duty can be passed or shared.

As I said, it's never a case of there being automatic liability for the actions of others. Never

DVardysShadow

iamcornholio wrote: »

No, it has specific meaning and criteria in the tort of negligence.

And if you know about that, then you will know that first it must be established that a duty is owed, and then it must be established whether there is a controlling person to whom any duty can be passed or shared.

As I said, it's never a case of there being automatic liability for the actions of others. Never

If you are going to disagree with me, have the courtesy to say something different from what I am saying.

It is implicit that there must be a duty owed - that is a criterion for liability, vicarious or otherwise. As for the question of a controlling person, that arises from the Master Servant relationship.

As for automatic liability for the actions of others, I did not say that there was. But with Master servant relationships, if you are the master and something happens on the job you are having done, it makes sense to look down the chain of Master Servant relationships and then find the reason why the liability stops at some point.

iamcornholio

DVardysShadow wrote: »

In terms of vicarious liability you are responsible for the actions of your servants,

That was your assertion

That is wrong, and that is what I am pointing out to you

DVardysShadow wrote: »

As for automatic liability for the actions of others, I did not say that there was.

It seems that you did as per the first quote. And again that is wrong, and that is what I am pointing out to you.

The crucial point which vicarious liability claims turn on, is the amount of control that the third party has over the actions of the tortfeasor (ie the person doing the alleged wrongful act). It is the level of control in the relationship which will determine if there is vicarious liability for the act, and not just this "master servant" relationship which you are quoting

DVardysShadow

iamcornholio wrote: »

That was your assertion

That is wrong, and that is what I am pointing out to you



It seems that you did as per the first quote. And again that is wrong, and that is what I am pointing out to you.

The crucial point which vicarious liability claims turn on, is the amount of control that the third party has over the actions of the tortfeasor (ie the person doing the alleged wrongful act). It is the level of control in the relationship which will determine if there is vicarious liability for the act, and not just this "master servant" relationship which you are quoting

Read the last paragraph of my post rather than get you knickers in a twist.

But, differently from the previous case where we discussed vicarious liability, the responsibility to care for the public pavement is a delegable responsibility. So the builders merchant is responsible in their own right.

The first thing to look for is a Master Servant relationship. Without it there is no vicarious liability. the whole transfer of liability hinges on this relationship being in place.

Remember, we are looking at whether or not OP is responsible for the damage to the pavement. So the first step is to establish whether there is path for vicarious liability. And the second step is to look for reasons why it does not apply.

Which is precisely what I did.

iamcornholio

I think we'll leave it at that, as you are obviously not professionally involved in any claims of this nature.

DVardysShadow

iamcornholio wrote: »

I think we'll leave it at that, as you are obviously not professionally involved in any claims of this nature.

You can't point out anything wrong with what I say. You'd love to, but you can't, so now you resort to an ad hominem attack on my credibility.

Quite simply, all the things you think are wrong with what I say are actually issues where you are reading something which I am not saying.